SB827

From HousingWiki
Revision as of 01:07, 7 January 2018 by imported>Tmccormick

SB827 (2018) is proposed California legislation that would excempt certain new housing, within certain distances from transit, from a variety of current zoning limitations such as maximum density or parking requirements.  It was introduced by San Francisco State Senator Scott Wiener on January 3, 2018.  (Principal coauthor: Senator Skinner; Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Ting). Bill text. 

Summary 

Title: SB-827 Planning and zoning: transit-rich housing bonus.(2017-2018) 

Summary from Legislative Counsel's Digest (in bill text): 

"The Planning and Zoning Law requires, when an applicant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or for the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents.
"This bill would authorize a transit-rich housing project to receive a transit-rich housing bonus. The bill would define a transit-rich housing project as a residential development project the parcels of which are all within a 1/2 mile radius of a major transit stop or a 1/4 mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are further defined. The bill would exempt a project awarded a housing opportunity bonus from various requirements, including maximum controls on residential density or floor area ratio, minimum automobile parking requirements, design standards that restrict the applicant’s ability to construct the maximum number of units consistent with any applicable building code, and maximum height limitations, as provided.
The bill would declare that its provisions address a matter of statewide concern and apply equally to all cities and counties in this state, including a charter city."

 

 

Concerns 

Concerns and involvement of local resident stakeholders could be overridden

Richard Hall‏  @rihallix  3:35 PM - 6 Jan 2018 from San Rafael, CA
Replying to @TaupeAvenger
"The community no longer has a say. #sb827 forces zoning changes by state fiat. With #sb35 passed all voices of resident stakeholders, councils, mayors are forcibly suppressed. Developers take control."

 

Transit could be cut back to circumvent the bill requirements

@MarketUrbanism 6 Jan 2018. 
"As for stopping cities from cutting bus routes, I would say do it based on current service *or* service that existed on Jan. 1, 2018."

 

Could lead to demolition and displacement in low-income areas

Damian Goodman

  • (@damianISgoodman) on Twitter, 4 Jan 2018).
    "Final word for tonight on  @Scott_Wiener's SB 827: Has anyone denied that the bill would lead to massive demolition of housing in low-income 'hoods like South LA? Heck, isn't that exactly what the YIMBYs are applauding? #SB827 #Colonizers #Gentrification
  • blog post: "SB 827 Is a Declaration of War on South LA." Crenshaw Subway Coalition blog, 5 Jan 2018.

 

new multi-story housing could negatively impact neighbors

 

 

Upzoing could create pressure for less well-off homeowners to sell and relocate. 

cf. Martha Bridegam twitter thread. 

 

Setback and lot coverage rules make the height limits weak. 

@MarketUrbanism 6 Jan 2018.  
"Setbacks and lot coverage rules that make the height limits weak. I would recommend forcing cities to accommodate FAR 2 within 45' zones, FAR 2.5 in 55' zones, and FAR 4 in 85' zones.

transit frequency needs to be better defined

@MarketUrbanism 6 Jan 2018:
"15-min headways needs to be defined more specifically. I would recommend defining it as total service along a route (so interlining is okay), and define it as, say, four buses within the 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. hours." 

Bjorn @Zmapper 6 Jan 2018: 
"Suggestion: Count frequency by number of buses per stop per day (set to equal roughly 15-min/hour frequency) to minimize political service cuts." 

Sandy Johnston
‏
 
@sandypsj
"This would treat frequent peak service+infrequent off-peak equally, whereas we should probably be incentivizing frequent all-day service."

@alon_levy
Counterpoint: it's easier for NIMBYs to cut off-peak than peak frequency, because their own transit use is very peaky.

@alon_levy
"The transit agency isn't run by NIMBYs, and 8-story density naturally fills more buses at low subsidy."

removing parking requirements will be infeasible or unacceptable

@MarketUrbanism 6 Jan 2018: 
"I love zeroing out parking requirements, but it seems like it might be a bit hard for some to swallow. Could permit requiring up to 0.5 spaces/bedroom, up to 1 space per unit, along the bus routes (not rail though) if there's pushback." 

Tony Jordan @twjpdx23 6 Jan 2018: 
"How about they can only require parking if they have robust parking demand management in place first?"

"Basically, if they're not attempting to manage on street demand through permit pricing, then they shouldn't be complaining about zeroing out parking requirements, imo."

 

Does, could, or would this lead to wanted mixed-use development

 

Liquefaction and earthquake risk since the transit areas tend to be closer to the Bay

 

Kim-Mai Cutler @kimmaicutler
 

Pending nuclear holocaust makes planning exercises like this pointless

from @BelmontRenters (Kevin Burke). 

 

thread from Brian Hanlon (@CAyimby) calling for issues 

some of above, and possible more issues noted in thread: 
@hanlonbt 11:36 AM - 6 Jan 2018
"Please send me common objections to SB 827, thinks like concerns about demolition, reduction in bus service, etc... Thanks!
 

References

 

Retrieved from "https://housing.wiki/wiki/SB827?oldid=3726"